SHAJAHAN Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Commissioner of Police and Additional District Magistrate (Executive), Hyderabad, in exercise of power under Section 3(2) of "The Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar of Financial Offenders Act, 1986 (Act No.1 of 1986), passed orders of detention dated 26.03.2021. The Commissioner holds that the detenu has been committing series of offences of theft of cell phones and cash from the passengers travelling in sharing auto-rickshaws and theft of two wheeler vehicles in the limits of Hyderabad and Cyberabad Police Commissionerate along with his associates, in an organized manner, creating large scale fear and panic among the general public affecting the public order. The Government accorded approval to the said detention order. The Advisory Board reviewed the case on 17.05.2021 and affirmed the decision to detain. Based on the said report of the Advisory Board, the Government passed orders of confirmation of detention under Section 12(1) read with Section 13 of the Act No.1 of 1986, valid for a period of 12 months from the date of detention i.e., 16.04.2021. Petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu, assails the said order of detention.

(2.) Heard Ms. Bibi Ayesha Mohammed, learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for learned Additional Advocate General for respondents.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the offences alleged against the detenu are only minor offences under Indian Penal Code, and merely because five crimes were registered against him and merely because he is categorized as 'goonda ', is no ground to resort to preventive detention. The offences alleged against the detenu are crimes against the individuals. They are only affecting the 'law and order ' and in no manner they affect the public order. Against his arrest, detenu approached the competent criminal Court and on due assessment of material on record, criminal Court granted bail. After release on bail, he was not involved in any further crime and, therefore, based on the alleged offences the Commissioner of Police ought not to have exercised the extraordinary power of detention. He further submits that detention order was passed against one Mr.Syed Sahil on the ground of involvement in the crimes of kidnapping a baby girl, theft of cell phones and cash from the passengers travelling in sharing auto-rickshaws and two of the crimes are same. Against the order of detention of Mr.Syed Sahil, W.P.No.14323 of 2021 was filed and this Court allowed the said writ petition setting aside the order of detention.